DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms REEMAY® and HOLLYTEX®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Beginning with paragraph [0033] in the specification there is a listing of “Clauses”. The examiner reminds the applicant of what is required in the content of the Specification, and it is improper to include a list of clauses or claims within the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75(h) and MPEP 608.01 (m): “The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page and should appear after the detailed description of the invention.”
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: There may be a typographical error in claim 4 line 2, does the applicant intend for the word “than” to be “that”? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is considered indefinite as improper Markush groupings. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group “consisting of” (rather than “comprising” or “including”) the alternative members (see MPEP 2173.05(h) and 2117). It is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim; the list of alternatives needs to be a closed grouping.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bloomer, US 599,072.
Regarding claim 1, Bloomer discloses a cleaning tool comprising a handle (A); a tube (at B, Figure 2) that: extends from the handle at a first end of the tube (Figure 2), and includes an opening that leads to an interior chamber at a second end that is opposite the first end (opening where C is located); and a cleaning wipe (J). Regarding claim 2, the cleaning wipe includes a first section (section of wipe J clamped within B, Figure 2) and a second section (section of wipe J that is unclamped in Figure 2) so that, during use of the cleaning tool: the first section is positioned and compressed inside of the chamber to secure the wipe in place (Figure 2); and the second section is positioned outside of the tube and is usable to clean a cavity of an item (Figure 2; capable of cleaning a cavity of an item). Regarding claim 3, the first section of the wipe is a central area of the wipe (Figure 2), and the second section of the wipe surrounds the first section (Figure 2). Regarding claim 4, there is an insertion tool comprising a pin (end of D at E, Figure 2) that has a width that is sized to fit within an opening (Figure 2). Regarding claim 5, the tube extends from a first handle end of the handle (at the narrowing between handle A and B as shown in Figure 2); and the handle also comprises a second handle end comprising an opening leading to a storage receptacle (end nearest F, G and H in Figure 2; receptacle includes socket H) that is sized and configured to receive and store the insertion tool (socket at H receives and stores a portion of insertion tool D as shown in Figure 2). Regarding claim 6, the insertion tool also comprises a base (at K, Figure 2); and the storage receptacle is configured so that, when the storage receptacle receives and stores the insertion tool, at least a portion of the base remains outside of the storage receptacle (as shown in Figure 2 with K remaining outside of the socket H). Regarding claim 7, the tube is integral with the handle (Figure 2).
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chipman et al., US 5,938,438.
Regarding claim 1, Chipman et al. disclose a cleaning tool comprising a handle (3); a tube (5) that: extends from the handle at a first end of the tube (Figure 2), and includes an opening that leads to an interior chamber at a second end that is opposite the first end (Figure 2, socket 7); and a cleaning wipe (11). Regarding claim 2, the cleaning wipe includes a first section (section of wipe 11 clamped within 7, Figures 2-3) and a second section (section of wipe 11 that is not within 7 in Figure 3) so that, during use of the cleaning tool: the first section is positioned and compressed inside of the chamber to secure the wipe in place (Figure 3); and the second section is positioned outside of the tube and is usable to clean a cavity of an item (Figure 3; capable of cleaning a cavity of an item). Regarding claim 7, the tube is integral with the handle (Figures 1-2). Regarding claim 8, the tube is less rigid than the handle (in that the tube of neck 5 can be bent when needed, column 2 lines 29-43).
Regarding claim 18, Chipman et al. discloses that there is a method of using a cleaning tool comprising steps of: grasping a handle of a cleaning tool (column 2 lines 25-26, handle 3) that comprises: the handle (3) and a tube (5) that: extends from the handle at a first tube end (Figures 2-3) and includes an opening that leads to an interior chamber at a second end opposite the first end (at 7); inserting a first section of a cleaning wipe through the opening and into the chamber in an amount sufficient to secure the wipe in place during use (column 2 lines 49-54, first section is the section secured into the chamber), while leaving a second section of the wipe positioned outside the tube (the exposed portion, column 2 lines 63-67); and applying the second section of the wipe to an item to clean the item (applies the exposed tip at 13 to tooth surfaces, cleans excess compound, column 1 lines 12-16, column 3 lines 3-29).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Disko, US 4,114,224.
Regarding claim 1, Disko discloses a cleaning tool comprising a handle (54); a tube (at 32, Figure 9) that: extends from the handle at a first end of the tube (Figure 10), and includes an opening that leads to an interior chamber at a second end that is opposite the first end (opening at dome shaped lower part 34, Figure 9); and a cleaning wipe (20 or 56). Regarding claim 2, the cleaning wipe includes a first section (section of wipe 20 or 56 clamped within 34, Figures 9-10) and a second section (section of wipe 20 or 56 that is unclamped in Figure 10) so that, during use of the cleaning tool: the first section is positioned and compressed inside of the chamber to secure the wipe in place (Figure 10); and the second section is positioned outside of the tube and is usable to clean a cavity of an item (Figure 10; capable of cleaning a cavity of an item). Regarding claim 3, the first section of the wipe is a central area of the wipe (Figure 10), and the second section of the wipe surrounds the first section (Figure 10). Regarding claim 4, there is an insertion tool (30) comprising a pin (40, Figures 9-10) that has a width that is sized to fit within an opening (Figures 9-10). Regarding claims 9-10, the wipe comprises non-woven polyester, cotton and rayon fibers (column 1 lines 36-47, column 3 lines 5-16), with continuous filament construction (column 1 lines 47-50).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, and 18-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyake et al., US 6,810,552.
Regarding claim 1, Miyake et al. disclose a cleaning tool comprising a handle (22); a tube (23, column 5 lines 16-19; tube alternatively at 61 in Figures 8A-8B) that: extends from the handle at a first end of the tube (Figures 1-2, 8A-8B), and includes an opening that leads to an interior chamber at a second end that is opposite the first end (opening where 25 is located in Figure 2, or where 63 is located in Figure 8A); and a cleaning wipe (21, 24; or 62). Regarding claim 2, the cleaning wipe includes a first section (section of wipe 21 clamped within opening, Figure 2; section at 63 in Figure 8A) and a second section (section of wipe 21 that is unclamped in Figure 2; section 65 in Figure 8A) so that, during use of the cleaning tool: the first section is positioned and compressed inside of the chamber to secure the wipe in place (Figures 2 or 8A-8B); and the second section is positioned outside of the tube and is usable to clean a cavity of an item (Figure 2; capable of cleaning a cavity of an optical connector 10). Regarding claim 3, the first section of the wipe is a central area of the wipe (63), and the second section of the wipe surrounds the first section (65, Figure 8A; column 7 lines 36-49). Regarding claim 4, there is an insertion tool comprising a pin (plug 25; alternatively, the thin rod described in column 7 lines 50-57) that has a width that is sized to fit within an opening (Figure 2). Regarding claim 7, the tube is integral with the handle (in the embodiment of Figures 8A-8B, tube is where 61 is located). Regarding claim 8, the tube is less rigid than the handle (in that the tube 23 can be a tape or shrinkable tube and the handle 22 can be a metal, column 5 lines 14-22). Regarding claim 9, the wipe comprises a sheet of polyester fibers (column 4 lines 26-32).
Regarding claim 18, Miyake et al. disclose that there is a method of using a cleaning tool comprising steps of: grasping a handle of a cleaning tool (column 5 lines 33-36, handle 22 is moved to and fro) that comprises: the handle (22) and a tube (23; tube alternatively at 61 in Figures 8A-8B) that: extends from the handle at a first tube end (Figures 1-2 or 8A-8B) and includes an opening that leads to an interior chamber at a second end opposite the first end (opening where 25 is located in Figure 2, or where 63 is located in Figure 8A); inserting a first section of a cleaning wipe through the opening and into the chamber in an amount sufficient to secure the wipe in place during use (column 4 lines 25-50, column 7 lines 50-62; the first section is the section of wipe 21 clamped within opening in Figure 2 or section at 63 in Figure 8A), while leaving a second section of the wipe positioned outside the tube (the exposed portion, section of wipe 21 that is unclamped in Figure 2; section 65 in Figure 8A); and applying the second section of the wipe to an item to clean the item (column 5 lines 30-38, Figure 2; the item is an optical connector 10). Regarding claim 19, applying the second section of the wipe to the item comprises inserting the wipe and the second end of the tube into a chamber of the item (the wipe is inserted into a chamber of the optical connector 10, see Figure 2 and column 5 lines 30-38). Regarding claim 20, the first section of the wipe is a central area of the wipe (Figures 8A-8B, 63); the second section of the wipe surrounds the first section (65, Figure 8A; column 7 lines 36-49 ); and inserting the first section of the wipe through the opening and into the chamber comprises using a pin of an insertion tool to push the first section of the wipe into the chamber (thin rod described in column 7 lines 50-57).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al., US 6,810,552 in view of Rzasa, US 5,227,226.
Miyake et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above, however fails to disclose that the wipe comprises a spunbonded, non-woven polyester fabric with a continuous filament construction.
Rzasa teaches a cleaning wipe for technical cleaning, including optical read or print heads (column 1 lines 5-9). Regarding claim 10, the material used for the wipe (card, 10) comprises a spunbonded, non-woven polyester fabric with continuous filament construction known for high tensile and tear strength (column 4 lines 17-36).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the wipe of Miyake et al. so that it comprises a spunbonded, non-woven polyester fabric with a continuous filament construction, as taught by Rzasa, to provide a suitable cleaning material with a high tensile and tear strength.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al., US 6,810,552.
Regarding claim 11, Miyake et al. describe all elements mentioned above relating the cleaning tool of claim 1 and additionally describes a kit (the kit comprising the parts to form the cleaning tool as shown in Figures 1-2), whereby the tube (23) is removably attached to the handle (a user is capable of removing the tube during disassembly by cutting or other techniques, see also column 5 lines 19-22), and describes one or more additional tubes (in the form of other tubes 23 including tape, a heat-shrinkable tube, or adhesive; column 5 lines 19-22; also see other tubes 23 shown in Figures 1-3B), wherein each of the tubes differs from the other tubes in length and/or opening size (the tubes may be of different lengths or opening sizes as the one shown in Figures 1-2 is of a different length and size, Figures 2 and 3B show tubes of different opening size). Regarding claim 12, the tubes are less rigid than the handle (in that the tubes 23 can be a tape or shrinkable tube and the handle 22 can be a metal, column 5 lines 14-22). Regarding claim 13, there is an insertion tool that comprises a pin sized to fit within a tube (25, Figures 1-2). Regarding claim 16, the wipe comprises a sheet of polyester fibers (column 4 lines 26-32).
Miyake et al. fail to describe explicitly that there is a kit, or grouping, specifically where there are tubes that differ from other tubes by length and/or opening size and plural insertion tools. MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B) discusses In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) where “the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significant unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. The mere duplication of parts to form a kit is considered an obvious modification as the combination of parts to form the kit does not provide a new or unexpected result.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyake et al. to provide duplicate parts of the disclosed cleaning tools in order to form a kit as a routine design choice within the capability of the user so that the cleaning tool can be reassembled or reused to suit a user’s need.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake et al., US 6,810,552 in view of Rzasa, US 5,227,226.
Miyake et al. disclose all elements previously discussed above, however fails to disclose that the wipe comprises a spunbonded, non-woven polyester fabric with a continuous filament construction.
Rzasa teaches a cleaning wipe for technical cleaning, including optical read or print heads (column 1 lines 5-9). Regarding claim 17, the material used for the wipe (card, 10) comprises a spunbonded, non-woven polyester fabric with continuous filament construction known for high tensile and tear strength (column 4 lines 17-36).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the wipe of Miyake et al. so that it comprises a spunbonded, non-woven polyester fabric with a continuous filament construction, as taught by Rzasa, to provide a suitable cleaning material with a high tensile and tear strength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art made of record discloses, teach or suggest the invention of claims 14-15. Miyake et al. fail to further disclose that within the kit that the handle comprises an opening at its second handle end leading to a storage receptacle that is sized and configured to receive and store any of the insertion tools. In Miyake et al. there is a storage receptacle (hollow interior of handle 22, see Figures), however there is no mention regarding the size of this receptacle or the size of the insertion tools. In the Figures of Miyake et al. it is unclear as to whether the insertion tool would be sized to fit within the storage receptacle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg
Prosecution Insights